Animating with physics instead of a timing function
taybenlor.com
Animating with physics instead of a timing function
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: Animating with physics instead of a timing function
#2I'm not sure I buy the premise, but that may just be a failure in the explanation. The author claims it's "more real" but provides little in the way of an explanation as to why this is so. It doesn't feel any more "real" to me. I feel like the author is trying to explain something, but I'm not sure what that is.
Re: Animating with physics instead of a timing function
#3A very interesting topic, but I'm a bit disappointed by the article. None of those animations use a physics engine at all…
Seems like a part 2 with more complex animations would be needed.
Re: Animating with physics instead of a timing function
#4There was a great article on exactly this subject some time ago on HN, but I can't find it right now...
The examples were also a lot more compelling than in this one. If someone can find it it would be great!
Re: Animating with physics instead of a timing function
#5Interesting premise. Unfortunately, the only animation that worked for me was the tweening one.
Re: Animating with physics instead of a timing function
#6There was a great article on exactly this subject some time ago on HN, but I can't find it right now... The examples were also a lot more compelling than in this one. If someone can find it it would be great!
If you manage to find it, I'd love to read it :)
Re: Animating with physics instead of a timing function
#7There was a great article on exactly this subject some time ago on HN, but I can't find it right now... The examples were also a lot more compelling than in this one. If someone can find it it would be great!
Do you mean Verlet.js?[1]
Note that box2djs is also very capable[2], and has been around for years (it is port of Erin Catto's great work on Box2D[3]).
[1] http://subprotocol.com/2013/04/18/introducing-verlet-js.html
Re: Animating with physics instead of a timing function
#8I'm not sure I buy the premise, but that may just be a failure in the explanation. The author claims it's "more real" but provides little in the way of an explanation as to why this is so. It doesn't feel any more "real" to me. I feel like the author is trying to explain something , but I'm not sure what that is.
TL;DR: If a transition changes values that are dependent on dynamic user input you get an unrealistic effect where small differences take as long to transition as large differences (because transitions usually have a fixed duration).
Re: Animating with physics instead of a timing function
#9Interesting premise. Unfortunately, the only animation that worked for me was the tweening one.
It only seems to work in Chrome, but the example isn't all that compelling.
Re: Animating with physics instead of a timing function
#10A very interesting topic, but I'm a bit disappointed by the article. None of those animations use a physics engine at all… Seems like a part 2 with more complex animations would be needed.
Yeah exactly, I felt the same. Was hunting for a link or next part to actually see an example using a physics engine..